Embattled Rep. David Wu will not seek reelection in 2012, but he won’t resign from office now despite allegations that the Oregon Democrat had an “unwanted sexual encounter” with the teenage daughter of a close friend last Thanksgiving.

“He isn’t going to be running for reelection,” a Wu adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told POLITICO late Sunday night. “But he hasn’t done anything that rises to the level of requiring him to resign.”

Nancy Pelosi begs to differ, apparently:

With a defiant Wu staying put, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on the Ethics Committee to investigate the explosive allegations against him.

“I call on the Ethics Committee to initiate an investigation into the allegations against Congressman Wu,” Pelosi said in a statement released after Wu’s decision to stay put. “With deep disappointment and sadness about this situation, I hope that the Ethics Committee will take up this matter.”

At this point, we hear about “erratic” behavior that doesn’t ostensibly involve sex. What exactly are the “new questions”? This is a cheap and ridiculous article in my view. A woman who is unhappy with her sexual relationship with Wu has called his office but has not called the police, and now we’re supposed to review everything else we know about him in some new context? Is this the way we are to do politics in America now?

Note that the woman who has brought this chaos into Wu’s career is shielded by the newspaper’s policy not to “use the names of victims of sexual assault without their permission.” That’s convenient. I think if you are going to have a policy like that, you should not report at all unless the alleged victim has reported a crime to the police. It’s not fair.

At this point, Glenn Reynolds wonders whether Pelosi wants Wu out of the way to run a stronger (translation: less weird) candidate for 2012. That doesn’t make much sense as an explanation, though. Democrats probably have more to lose from a special election in OR-01 than to gain. The district is D+8 in the Cook index, which makes it a safer district for Democrats than Anthony Weiner’s seat in NY-09 (D+5). Special election turnouts can be unpleasantly surprising, though, especially in the wake of scandal — and it might just put a Republican in that seat as an incumbent for 2012.

In terms of electoral advantage, Democrats are probably better off having Wu remain in the seat, as long as Democrats keep him at arm’s length. That would explain the ethics probe; it allows Democrats to disown Wu for the next fifteen months, a period of time likely too short for an Ethics probe to finish anyway. They will have enough time to find a more reliable (translation: less embarrassing) candidate for 2012 and be able to rely on normal turnout patterns in a scheduled election to hold the seat.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

This is a Democrat from the insanely liberal Portland area. The Oregonian reporting on this is less than abysmal and Wu is about as safe a insane person can get in Congress, except maybe Pelosi.
Frankly, imo, this goes back to when all of his staffers resigned last winter. Why on earth did the reporting just stop with the fact that they all left him? Because there is zero true journalism if you are a Democrat, and even less if you’re a lib. I also think that his bizarre behavior is condoned by the lack of attention.
This guy is not resigning. Why should he? He is just another scumball from the liberal cesspool of Portland. “Keep Portland Wierd” is not just a slogan.

This guy pushed and pushed and pushed for emission standards, electric cars, cap and trade, etc., but drives an SUV (not a hybrid one either) around Portland.

A real piece of work. But people in Oregon just look for the D. They could care less about the character, integrity, or sanity of the candidate, just as long as the Democrats put him/her on the ballot.

I don’t know if I would go as far as wanting this girl’s name in the public but I have to question the timing. The incident took place in November and the voice mail this spring? This guy is a whackadoddle but I if we start letting the press, with nothing but anonymous sources, run this guy out of town, our side is going to be in BIG trouble. MSM has a vested interest in destroying our guys.

“Allegation of assault on woman in 1970s in college shadow U.S. Rep. David Wu

This is an actual headline from an article in The Oregonian in October, 2004, on the eve of his reelection to a fourth term in Congress.

From the article:

David Wu, future Oregon congressman, and the woman later dated in their junior year. But that spring, in 1976, she broke things off. A few months later, an encounter occurred that neither wants to discuss.

That summer, the 21-year-old Wu was brought to the campus police annex after his ex-girlfriend said he tried to force her to have sex, according to Raoul K. Niemeyer, then a patrol commander who questioned him.

Wu had scratches on his face and neck, and his T-shirt was stretched out of shape, Niemeyer said.

Earlier, someone had interrupted a scuffle in the woman’s dorm room. A Stanford professor said the woman told him the next day that Wu had angrily attacked her. An assistant dean who counseled the woman for two months said that the woman called it attempted rape and that Wu used a pillow to muffle her screams.

Wu told police that what happened was consensual. “He said, ‘We just, I was with my girlfriend, and we just got a little carried away,’ ” Niemeyer remembered. After that, he said, Wu “clammed up.”

The woman declined to press charges. However, this episode has apparently been well known for a long while…”

Shouldn’t Republicans be putting pressure on the Dems to MAKE him step down? Because of, you know, the advantage that a Special election would give the Republicans? Why do the R’s never fight anything?

Just because there are lowlifes, perverts and criminal scum in Congress is no reason to accept it as inevitable. We elected these people. Are we not responsible for the effects of our votes? We cannot be so jaded as to shrug our shoulders and say “Oh well”. It is this attitude that will ultimately keep Obama in office to complete his “fundamental transformation” of the US. Remember, all that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Don’t be the good man who does nothing.

From what I understand there is ZERO chance that a Republican would pick up the seat.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 11:48 AM

There will definitely be zero chance if the R’s just sit back and do nothing. I hate this idea of inevitability that causes us to simply accept whatever the Dems choose to do regards to criminals in their own party without any fight whatsoever.

I envy the fight that Democrats bring to EVERY battle, regardless of their chances to win. They fight, and they fight dirty, because they fight to WIN. Republicans just sit back and take it even when the Dems give them ammunition.

I do not think that tainted reps should resign unless they have committed a felony or impeachable offense. I like the idea of stating that they will not run again; this would save the hassle of special elections. There is something to be said for pols who are not dependent on their party for reelection support.

I think the term “teenager” demands more specificity in this case. If she’s underage, it doesn’t matter if she calls the police or not, it should be a police matter. If she’s an adult, she needs to file criminal charges to be taken seriously on this.

Either way, Wu has been exposed as a Democrat possessing horrible judgement. Sorry for being redundant.

Gee, what’s his party affiliation? I notice that Pelosi’s is mentioned, but nothing about Wu. Could the writer of this story be trying to make people think Pelosi (D) wants to instigate an ethics complaint against a fellow (D)? No, I didn’t think so either. The writer wants people to think Pelosi is going after an (R).